MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance argues that 'dangerous' Texas heartbeat law is 'facially unconstitutional' because it breaks with past SCOTUS precedent [video]

Now that the Texas heartbeat law is in effect, MSNBC senior producer Kyle Griffin is upset at all the members of the media who weren’t freaking out enough about Roe v. Wade being “gutted” (even though they’ve been freaking out about it literally for years). But at least Kyle can feel a little better knowing that MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance understands the gravity of the situation:

.@JoyceWhiteVance: “Cases like this will make inroads that will lead to gutting the protections that Roe has provided. The TX law doesn't permit abortion even in the case of rape or incest or maternal health, it is a very restrictive law and a dangerous moment for women in TX.” pic.twitter.com/4OXlGaxFaP

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) September 2, 2021

It’s bad enough that Texas’ law is restrictive and dangerous … but on top of that, it’s “facially unconstitutional, Willie”:

MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance on Texas’ pro-life law: "The law is facially unconstitutionally, Willie, which means it violates prior Supreme Court precedent … It is a very restrictive law and a dangerous moment for women in Texas." pic.twitter.com/SyREZit7Jb

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 2, 2021

On top of being an MSNBC legal analyst, Vance is also a former Alabama U.S. Attorney. So you’d think that she’d at least understand why you don’t just throw something like “facially unconstitutional” around without understanding what that actually means.

where are they getting the idea that something is unconstitutional if it breaks with previous SCOTUS precedent? what do they suppose Brown v. Board did? https://t.co/MGbAPfaScr

— tsar becket adams (@BecketAdams) September 2, 2021

Nobody tell her about Brown v. Board https://t.co/TOpDu54Bu2

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 2, 2021

If people want to reflexively stand on stare decisis like this in the name of “good” law, they’re gonna need to square that with every morally reprehensible decision in history—Dred Scott, Plessy, Bell v Buck, Koramatsu—that are also “precedent.” https://t.co/FMwY3UHtVb

— Michael Haugen (@HaugenTX) September 2, 2021

We’re not lawyers or legal analysts, but even we know that what she’s saying doesn’t make any sense.

The dissents of Sotomayor and Kagan stated that the law was "flagrantly unconstitutional" and "patently unconstitutional", respectively, but it's the "conservative" justices who are supposedly radical activists. https://t.co/1nNp6SBPlz

— Fuzzy Chimp 🇺🇸 (@fuzzychimpcom) September 2, 2021

I wasn't aware that once the Supreme Court decides a case, the issue is done and settled forever. Then again, I'm not a "legal analyst" at @MSNBC, I'm just a guy who is aware of history and how the Court works. https://t.co/0iP1m3NatZ

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) September 2, 2021

“Legal analysts” must not have to know anything about actual law. https://t.co/iievaty3tx

— I don’t care about your pronouns. (@NotGonnaStop84) September 2, 2021

Legal analyst doesn’t understand that the Supreme Court can and has overturned precedent. It’s not set in stone.

— Long Snapper (@LongRay50) September 2, 2021

Lol – “vIoLateS pReViOuS prECeDEnt”….

Someone needs to tell her why there’s a SCOTUS, what they do, and some of the previous “violations of precedence”

🤪🤡🤪🤡

— Hootyman (@TheHootyman) September 2, 2021

@BadLegalTakes

— Oliver Klaushoff (@realparkstop) September 2, 2021

are these the same people who thought the CDC eviction moratorium was constitutional?

— Jack Merridew (@Maroon_1001) September 2, 2021

Yes.

pic.twitter.com/rjGpTjxooi

— David Creel (@TheDavidCreel) September 2, 2021

"The Supreme Court can't overrule a previous Supreme Court decision!" is exactly the take you should expect from an MSNBC "legal analyst".

— Mad as Ell (@mad_as_ell) September 2, 2021

So are these tweets:

If the Texas statute survives judicial scrutiny then other states can adopt similar laws. That means no safe harbors for women & especially a horrible impact on those who are poor. https://t.co/VTQoTTf9ZX

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 1, 2021

Abortion & the right to control one’s own body once galvanized a generation of women & it will happen again. But my heart breaks for the girls & women who will suffer along the way.

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 1, 2021

Don’t think Roe is only dead in Texas. If you live in a state like mine, they’re coming for you next. States like Alabama will jump on the Texas bandwagon. If you’re a woman & you don’t feel safe tonight, you’re right.

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 2, 2021

You’ve got to admire her commitment to the bit. Not just the “facially unconstitutional” thing, but also her contention that the law is “dangerous.” Dangerous to whom, exactly?